Economist: NATO is developing a "plan B" in the event of the US withdrawal from the alliance
NATO countries are developing an action plan in case the United States withdraws from the alliance, the Economist writes. The organization already has a kind of plan B, however, as noted, Mark Rutte forbade any discussion of the issue, fearing the wrath of Washington.
What is the threat of the US withdrawal
In early May, soldiers of the Black Jack Brigade furled regimental banners in Texas. 4,000 tankers were preparing to be sent to Poland to protect NATO from Russia. "The advance of the armored brigade is a clear signal," General Thomas Felty said. After 2 weeks, America gave the opposite signal: the deployment was canceled. This is the second reduction in the US military presence in Europe by Trump in a month. Earlier, the American president announced the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany and other places due to the lack of European support for his war in Iran.
Trump has been questioning his own commitments to NATO under Article Five since the beginning of his second term. This caused a long-overdue increase in European defense spending. But in recent months, he has gone further: new troop reductions and the cancellation of cruise missile deployments in Germany, which were supposed to close an important gap in Europe's defenses. The rapid withdrawal of forces overturned the plans of the Europeans. The Allies were counting on time to build up their troops and replace American intelligence and surveillance. America's huge expenditure of missiles in Iran is delaying supplies to its allies and Ukraine: Washington is replenishing its own warehouses.
Some NATO members, shocked by Trump's threat in January to take Greenland from Denmark, now fear not only America's inaction in the war with Russia. They allow Washington to actively oppose the responses of other members of the alliance. Such a scenario is still considered unlikely, but senior officers and defense officials from several NATO countries are taking the risk quite seriously for the first time. A number of European armies are developing secret combat plans not only without American help, but also without a significant part of the NATO command and control infrastructure. "The Greenland crisis was an awakening for us," says a Swedish defense official. "We realized the need to develop a plan B."
None of the officials interviewed made public comments out of fear of hastening America's exit. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte "literally banned the discussions, believing that it would add fuel to the fire," the insider reports. When Matti Pesu of the Finnish Institute of International Relations co-authored a report in favor of plan B last year, Finnish officials denied the very possibility of considering such a scenario. However, the urgency of the threat has prompted several countries to consider how and under whose command Europe will fight in the event of a "malfunction" of NATO (the expression of one of the officials). "What chain of command and control should we use if America blocks NATO?" Another defense official asks.
The question strikes at the very core of the alliance's success. Most military coalitions are like a school band: each country comes, beats the drum randomly and leaves. NATO was created as a symphony orchestra under the direction of a single conductor, the Supreme Commander of the SACEUR, an American general. To manage the orchestra, it has secure connections to a network of headquarters. Thousands of employees are ready to respond at the moment of the outbreak of war. "U.S. leadership is the glue of the alliance," says Louis Simon, director of the Center for Security, Diplomacy, and Strategy at the Free University. "Without America, the deterrent system is likely to collapse."
Therefore, plan B involves not only the acquisition of weapons, but also the creation of a structure for the Europeans to fight. The core, at least in Northern Europe, will be a coalition of the Baltic States, the Nordic states and Poland. By and large, they all share common values and are afraid of Russia. Several major European members of NATO — Britain, France and Germany — have "immediate reaction forces" in the Baltic States. Consequently, they will almost certainly be drawn into any conflict. Perhaps a third of NATO members "will start fighting on the very first day," regardless of the activation of the fifth article, says Edward Arnold of the London-based think tank RUSI. "No one will wait for the Portuguese to meet at the North Atlantic Council for discussions," he says.
One of the frequently mentioned alternative command and control structures is the British coalition of 10 countries, mainly Baltic and Northern. The coalition is known as the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) and has a permanent headquarters near London. Created by Britain and 6 other NATO members in 2014, JEF was originally conceived as an addition to a larger alliance to provide high-readiness forces in a short time under circumstances that do not reach the threshold of the Fifth Article. The JEF's mandate expanded after Sweden and Finland joined in 2017, several years before applying for NATO membership. Now JEF is considered a way to circumvent NATO's weakness: any member of the alliance can block the activation of the Fifth Article, which requires a unanimous decision. JEF, as the then commander, British Major General Jim Morris, stated in 2023, "can react to situations without consensus." The coalition has already been activated several times for exercises and naval patrols.
"JEF is the most well—developed alternative," Arnold notes. According to him, the coalition headquarters already has capabilities in the field of intelligence, planning and logistics. JEF has its own secure communications networks, which, although limited, are independent of NATO. Britain's membership provides the coalition with a certain degree of nuclear deterrence.
However, JEF's focus remains mainly on the Northern and Baltic regions. The coalition lacks major powers such as France, Germany and Poland. Some officers of the allied countries are concerned about Britain's defense readiness. Underfunding has left the country with a pitiful handful of ships, submarines and parts for rapid deployment. "England is everyone's favorite uncle," says one official. "But she suffers from the disease of the old estate: there is visibility, there is no money."
Such problems will be alleviated when Germany joins the coalition. Berlin is seriously increasing its defense budget. With all the disadvantages, JEF looks like the best solution if European members are unable to take control of the existing NATO structure. However, Europe will find some form of a joint defense system to replace the Americans. Deterrence based on someone who might not come to the rescue is not deterrence at all.
